RE: MATCTX (was Detecting changing objects...)

> This is not a breach of security.  There are many system APIs that
> provide a function that is not directly available to user state
> application programs.  This is simply one of them.  In this particular
> case IBM knew of developers using the MI MATCTX, knew that it was in
> the best interest of everyone to allow these developers to work on
> level 40 and 50 systems, evaluated the specific inputs and outputs of
> MATCTX, considered the development cost to make developers change to a
> more formal API (Receiver variable, length, format, error code, etc.)
> and decided that a simple wrapper of the MATCTX MI instruction would
> be the most appropriate solution in this specific case.
> 
        [Leif Svalgaard]  Then explain *why* MATCTX at levels 40 and 50
gives
        a protection violation while the wrapped API does not. Not *how
come*.
        That I understand fully (the API being a system state program), but
*why*
        with the API available it was deemed necessary to disallow MATCTX 
        directly?
+---
| This is the MI Programmers Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MI400@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MI400-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MI400-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: dr2@cssas400.com
+---